Kwikbolt Ltd v Airbus Operations Ltd

Decision date: 25 March 2021

Neutral citation: [2021] EWHC 732 (IPEC)

Overall AI summary confidence: high

AI Notice: Any short overview, ratio decidendi summary or obiter dicta summary shown on this page is AI-generated, provided only to help users assess potential relevance more quickly, and may be wholly inaccurate. No liability is accepted for the accuracy of any such summary, regardless of any AI confidence rating shown. Users should check the underlying decision and obtain appropriate legal advice rather than relying on any summary.

Short overview

This short overview is intended to summarise the case, issues and outcome so far as they are supported by the judgment.

AI confidence in this short overview: high

Kwikbolt's patent for a "removable blind fastener" was upheld as valid but was found not to be infringed by Airbus's Centrix Free Spin Fasteners, either literally or under the doctrine of equivalents. The court construed key claim terms (e.g. "removable" as suitable for unit removal without significant damage) and identified the inventive concept as a blind removable fastener that sits substantially flush with the upper workpiece in clamping mode. Airbus was confined to the single version of the E‑Nut pleaded in its amended grounds and its additional prior‑art allegations and evidence did not establish lack of novelty or obviousness.

Ratio decidendi

This summary is intended to identify the ratio decidendi, meaning the legal reasons for deciding and the binding part of the decision.

AI confidence in this ratio decidendi summary: high

Claims are to be given their ordinary purposive meaning unless the specification requires otherwise (illustrated by defining "removable" by suitability for non‑damaging removal). The inventive concept must be identified from the patent specification together with common general knowledge before assessing variants under the doctrine of equivalents. A party alleging a commercial product as prior art must plead unambiguously which version is relied upon.

Obiter dicta

This summary is intended to identify obiter dicta, meaning observations made by the way that were not necessary to deciding the case and are not binding.

AI confidence in this obiter dicta summary: medium

The judgment records views that expert reports can be unduly influenced by legal teams and that oral evidence may in some cases be more reliable than expert reports. The court also indicated that cross‑examination bundles should normally be given to witnesses at least 48 hours in advance and that late introduction of such materials requires exceptional justification.